JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Ms. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner-Electricity Company and Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the workman. 2. These two petitions are heard and decided together since both the petitions arise from same and common order. 3. The Electricity Company has filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 6394 of 2005 and challenged the award dated 05.01.2004, passed by learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1764 of 1994, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the Electricity Company to reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service and to pay back-wages for the period from 24.06.1998. The Electricity Company is aggrieved by the said directions. The workman has filed the petition and challenged very same order dated 05.01.2004 passed by learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 1764/94 and challenged the decision of learned Labour Court of denying the back-wages for the period prior to 24.06.1998. 4. So far as factual backdrop is concerned, it has emerged from the impugned order that concerned workman was appointed as Sub-overseer by virtue of appointment order dated 04.02.1991, which was signed and issued under the name and authority of Superintending Engineer (Transmission) Electricity Board. 5. After some time, the Electricity Company sought to terminate the service of the concerned workman on the ground that the appointment was made illegally and by officer who did not have authority to appoint the concerned workman and at the relevant time, there was no vacancy for the said post and also on the ground that the appointment was made without sanction and approval of the head office. At that stage, the concerned workman preferred writ petition. In the said proceeding, initially the Court granted stay against termination of the concerned workman. However, subsequently interim relief was vacated, and thereafter, the Electricity Company passed order dated 01.06.1992 and terminated service of the concerned workman. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said termination order, the workman raised industrial dispute. Appropriate government referred the dispute vide order dated 10.08.1994. The said reference was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 1764 of 1994. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the concerned workman filed his statement of claim and alleged that his appointment was made pursuant to interview and his appointment was legal and proper. Appropriate government referred the dispute vide order dated 10.08.1994. The said reference was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 1764 of 1994. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the concerned workman filed his statement of claim and alleged that his appointment was made pursuant to interview and his appointment was legal and proper. He also alleged that from the date of his appointment i.e. 04.02.1991, he worked with the Electricity Company continuously, however, without any fault on his part, his service came to be terminated illegally and arbitrarily vide order dated 01.06.1992. He also alleged that though he had worked continuously for more than 12 months and though he had worked for not less than 240 during the said period, his service was terminated without payment of compensation or notice pay. He also alleged that his service was not terminated for any mis-conduct, however, any compensation was not paid to him at the time of termination and that therefore, termination order is illegal and it should be set aside. 7. The reference was opposed by the Electricity Company, who filed written statement and disputed and denied the allegation by the workman. The Electricity Company claimed that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and unauthorized. It was claimed that when the concerned workman was appointed, there was no vacancy in the cadre and for the post of Sub-overseer and the officer, who issued appointment order was not authorized to appoint the concerned workman and the appointment of the concerned workman was made without sanction and approval from the head office. It was also submitted that when the fact about the said unauthorized appointment came to the notice of the Electricity Company, the service of the concerned workman came to be terminated. On such premise, the Electricity Company claimed that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in its action and the termination order dated 01.06.1992 was just, legal and proper. Thereafter, the deposition of concerned workman was recorded. The Electricity Company also examined three witnesses whose depositions were recorded below Exh Nos. 23, 26 and 30. On such premise, the Electricity Company claimed that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in its action and the termination order dated 01.06.1992 was just, legal and proper. Thereafter, the deposition of concerned workman was recorded. The Electricity Company also examined three witnesses whose depositions were recorded below Exh Nos. 23, 26 and 30. The concerned workman, during his evidence asserted that he had worked continuously for more than 12 months and during preceding 12 months he had worked for more than 240 days and before his service came to be terminated neither any inquiry was conducted nor compensation or any other amount was paid, and therefore, the termination order is illegal and arbitrary. During his examination, the concerned workman admitted that the initial / first order of appointment was only for one month. He, however, also claimed that thereafter, different orders were passed granting extension on one month/two months basis and that he was continuously employed. He also accepted that as further extension was not granted, he had filed writ petition challenging the action of the Company of not granting extension on the ground that his service was orally terminated. He also accepted that the interim relief, which was granted by the High Court in the writ petition was subsequently vacated, and thereafter, termination order was passed. 8. The oral evidence of all three witnesses of the Electricity Company are on the same line i.e. the appointment of the concerned workman was illegal and unauthorized. The said witnesses claimed that procedure for selection and appointment in the Electricity Company is governed by prescribed rules and regulations and that according to the prescribed rules and procedure, any appointment without sanction and approval from head office cannot be made at circle level. The Electricity Company also claimed that at the relevant time, there was no vacancy in the cadre of and on the post of Sub-overseer. The witnesses on behalf of the Electricity Company also claimed that the appointment as well as extension to the concerned workman were without authority in law and by person not competent and authorized to give appointment of extension, and therefore, appointment was illegal from inception. 9. The learned Labour Court considered the material on record and the said evidence. The witnesses on behalf of the Electricity Company also claimed that the appointment as well as extension to the concerned workman were without authority in law and by person not competent and authorized to give appointment of extension, and therefore, appointment was illegal from inception. 9. The learned Labour Court considered the material on record and the said evidence. The learned Labour Court noticed that the service of the concerned workman was not terminated on the ground of any mis-conduct and pursuant to the domestic inquiry. The learned Labour Court also noticed that the service of the respondent was terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act since the retrenchment compensation was not paid to the concerned workman at the time of termination of his service despite the fact that the respondent workman had worked for more than 12 months and during preceding 12 months he had worded for more than 240 days. 10. Having reached to the said conclusion on the basis of evidence and material on record, learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that since the termination of the concerned workman was illegal and arbitrary, he deserves to be reinstated in service. Consequently, order directing the Electricity Company to reinstate the respondent came to be passed. With regard to the workmans claim for back wages, learned Labour Court recorded that though the reference was made in 1994, until June 1998, the concerned workman had not come forward for his deposition, and that therefore, concerned workman would not be entitled for the period prior to the date of which his deposition was recorded. 11. In light of the said conclusion, learned Labour Court denied back wages for the period prior to 24.06.1998, however, directed the Company to pay back wages from 24.06.1998. 12. At the time of hearing of this petition, Ms. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner, so as to justify the action of terminating service of the concerned workman raised and reiterated the same contentions which was raised before the learned Labour Court, more particularly the contention with regard to the nature of appointment of concerned workman. She submitted that since initial appointment itself was illegal and unauthorized, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief and the learned Labour court committed error in directing the Company to reinstate the concerned workman and to pay back wages for the period from 24.06.1998. She submitted that since initial appointment itself was illegal and unauthorized, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief and the learned Labour court committed error in directing the Company to reinstate the concerned workman and to pay back wages for the period from 24.06.1998. She submitted that in view of the fact that the appointment itself was illegal, the request should have been rejected and learned Labour Court has committed error in allowing the reference and directing the Company to reinstate the petitioner with benefit of back-wages from 24.06.1998. 13. So as to support the said submission, Ms. Desai, learned advocate relied on the decisions in the case of M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav & Ors. [in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Manshu Kumbhkar [ (2007) 8 SCC 249 ] and in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Das & Ors. [ (2002) 4 SCC 503 ]. 14. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the concerned workman submitted that the concerned workman was appointed pursuant to interview, and that therefore, the claim that his appointment is illegal and arbitrary is not correct. He also submitted that since the service of the concerned workman was not terminated on the ground of mis-conduct, the termination amounted to retrenchment however, retrenchment was not paid compensation when his service came to be terminated, and therefore, the termination is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that when the learned Labour Court found that the termination order was illegal, then as corollary the direction for reinstatement and back-wages should follow. However, the learned Labour Court committed error by denying the back-wages for the period prior to June, 1998. He submitted that the direction regarding reinstatement and continuity of service may be confirmed, however, the direction qua back-wages may be modified and direction for full back-wages may be passed. 15. So as to consider and appreciate rival contentions, it is necessary and appropriate to take into account certain undisputed facts. 15.1 It is not in dispute that the concerned workman came to be appointed vide appointment letter dated 4.3.1991. 15.2 It is also not in dispute that the service of the concerned workman came to be terminated vide termination order dated 1.6.1992. 15.1 It is not in dispute that the concerned workman came to be appointed vide appointment letter dated 4.3.1991. 15.2 It is also not in dispute that the service of the concerned workman came to be terminated vide termination order dated 1.6.1992. 15.3 It is not in dispute that prior to the termination of service of the concerned workman, he had worked continuously for more than 12 months and during preceding 12 months, he had worked for not less than 240 days. 15.4 It is not in dispute that the petitioners appointment was made on temporary post of Sub Overseer and initial appointment (vide order dated 4.2.1991) was only for one month and that the said order was issued by the Superintending Engineer (Transmission). 15.5 It is not in dispute that the service of the concerned workman was not terminated on ground of misconduct and any enquiry before terminating the service was not conducted against the concerned workman. 15.6 It is not in dispute that the retrenchment compensation or any amount was not paid to the concerned workman at the time when his service came to be terminated vide order dated 1.6.1992. 16. The rival claims and contentions are required to be considered in light of the above-mentioned undisputed facts. 17. The electricity company does not dispute the fact that the concerned person had worked with it for the period from 4.2.1991 to 1.6.1992. However, the electricity company claims that the appointment itself was illegal and unauthorized from the inception 18. In the decision in the case of Devindar Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanpur, reported in ( 2011 6 SCC 584 ), Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the decisions in case of Silver Jubilee Tailoring House Versus Inspector of Shops & Establishment and the decision in case of L. Robert D'Souza Versus Southern railway and observed that:-- "In Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments 1974 (3) SCC 498 the three Judge Bench held that the tailors employed in a tailoring shop, who were paid according to their skill and work and the quality of whose work was regularly checked were employees covered by the 12 Andhra Pradesh (Tilengana Area) Shops and Establishments Act, 1951. In case of L. Rober DSouza Versus Southern Railway the Court held that even a daily-rated worker would be entitled to protection of Section 25-F of the Act if he had continuously worked for a period of one year or more." (emphasis supplied) Thus, what emerges is that if the workman has fulfilled conditions prescribed under section 25F of the Act, then even the person who is appointed on daily wage basis, would be entitled for protection under section 25F. 18.1 In the decision in the case of B.K. Dvivedi Versus Hindalco Industries Ltd. (AIR 2014 SC 2258), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held that any termination which is in violation of section 25F is void ab initio and the consequence of such void action would be reinstatement coupled with the direction for backwages. 18.2 In the decision in the case of Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation Versus Sital Singh ( 2013 5 SCC 136 ), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held that in cases where it is established that the termination of service was effected in violation of section 25F, then in all such cases, the direction for reinstatement, backwages may not be mechanically granted and if compelling or other appropriate and satisfactory circumstances which demonstrate that reinstatement would not be practical, are established, then the relief may be moulded and order for appropriate lump sum compensation can be passed. 19. In the present case, the learned Labour Court has recorded finding of fact that the concerned workman had worked continuously for more than 13 months, i.e. from 4.2.1991 to 1.6.1993 and that during preceding 12 months, the concerned workman had worked for more than 240 days. 19.1 Thus, the condition required for attracting provision under section 25F was complied in present case. 19.2 Under the circumstances, the condition under Section 25F were not complied by the electricity company and the service of the concerned workman was terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation or any other amount. Thus, the concerned workman was terminated in violation of section 25F. 20. In the present case, there is an additional and pertinent feature which requires special mention. Thus, the concerned workman was terminated in violation of section 25F. 20. In the present case, there is an additional and pertinent feature which requires special mention. The appointment letter issued in favour of the concerned workman contained below quoted condition as service condition: (1) Your appointment as explained to you at the time of interview is on a purely temporary basis for a period of one month and is terminable at any time on either side without assigning any reason thereof & without any notice of compensation except as required under Sec. 25 of the I.D. Act-1947." (emphasis supplied) 20.1 From the said service condition prescribed in the appointment letter, it comes out that obligation to pay compensation in accordance with section 25F was accepted as applicable and necessary condition incorporated as service condition in the appointment letter itself. 21. On examination of the said appointment letter (at page 26), it comes out that the said order is a standard appointment order in case of temporary appointments and the electricity company issues such orders on regular basis and the condition incorporated in clause (1) of the appointment letter is a standard condition accepted by the electricity company in respect of even temporary appointment made by it. 21.1 The said provision in clause.1 of the appointment order is binding to the company. 21.2 The said provision in clause 1 obliges the company to pay compensation as required under Section25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (it being statutory obligation applicable on fulfillment of the condition prescribed therein) and relieves it from paying any compensation other than i.e. except the compensation, payable under Section 25F of the Act. 21.3 Thus, in present case, the respondent was entitled for payment of retrenchment compensation not only by virtue of provision under section 25F and in light of the fact that he had worked continuously for more than 12 months and in preceding 12 months, he had worked for not less than 240 days, but also by virtue of clause (1) in the appointment order. 21.4 The said clause (1) obliged the electricity company to pay compensation in accordance with section 25F. 21.5 The company is bound by the provision prescribed by it and by its own appointment order. 22. Despite the said position, the electricity company did not pay retrenchment compensation to the concerned workman at the time when the company terminated his service. 21.4 The said clause (1) obliged the electricity company to pay compensation in accordance with section 25F. 21.5 The company is bound by the provision prescribed by it and by its own appointment order. 22. Despite the said position, the electricity company did not pay retrenchment compensation to the concerned workman at the time when the company terminated his service. 23. In this view of the matter and in light of the above-quoted observations by Hon'ble Apex Court, the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court that the service of the concerned workman was terminated in violation of section 25F cannot be faulted. 23.1 However, when the direction to reinstate the respondent is examined in light of facts of this case, it comes out that in present case, it is established that the service of the concerned workman came to be terminated in violation of section 25F. Therefore, the termination of the service of the concerned workman should be considered ab initio void. However, the question which would arise is that in the facts of the case, whether direction for reinstatement is justified, having regard to the other relevant facts of the case or, the reliefs in light of the fact that violation of section 25F is established, ought to be modified. 23.2 In the cross-examination of the said three witnesses examined by the electricity company, the concerned workman has not been able to establish that at the time when he was appointed in February 1991, there was existing vacancy in the cadre and on the post of Sub Overseer. The concerned workman could not and did not establish the said fact in his deposition also or by any other material. Likewise, through his any evidence or by cross-examination of the three witnesses of the company or by any other material, the concerned workman also could not establish before the learned Labour Court that his appointment was made in accordance with the rules for selection and recruitment, which included the sanction and approval from the head office. 23.3 Under the circumstances, it comes out that initial appointment of the concerned workman was not only for temporary period and on temporary post but was made without complying the requirement under selection and recruitment rules. 23.4 Besides this, total tenure of the service of the concerned workman was of 15 months. 23.3 Under the circumstances, it comes out that initial appointment of the concerned workman was not only for temporary period and on temporary post but was made without complying the requirement under selection and recruitment rules. 23.4 Besides this, total tenure of the service of the concerned workman was of 15 months. 23.5 When the above-mentioned aspects are taken into account, i.e. short tenure of the appointment and non-compliance of the selection and recruitment rules at the time of appointment, it appears that instead of direction asking the petitioner to reinstate the concerned workman, appropriate direction, in the peculiar facts of the case, would be to award appropriate compensation. 23.6 Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the direction asking the electricity company to reinstate the concerned workman deserves to be set aside and appropriately modified. This Court is of the view that having regard to the above-mentioned aspects, the appropriate relief would be of granting lump sum compensation. 24. On this count, it is necessary to recall that in addition to the statutory obligation on the company to comply the condition under section 25F, in the present case the said obligation was cast on the company even by virtue of the appointment order. The provision under section 25F obliged the company to pay compensation at the time when it terminated the service of the concerned workman because the conditions required for attracting the provision under section 25F existed in the present case inasmuch as the concerned workman had worked for more than 12 months before termination of his service and during preceding 12 months, he had worked for not less than 240 days. 24.1 Under the circumstances, the statutory obligation was attracted and that was required to be complied and even contractual obligation was also attracted. However, undisputedly the said obligation were not complied with by the Company. This renders the action of termination illegal which earns the relief of backwages for the workman. In the present case, for justifiable reasons recorded in the award, the learned Tribunal has denied backwages for period prior to 24.6.1998. However, undisputedly the said obligation were not complied with by the Company. This renders the action of termination illegal which earns the relief of backwages for the workman. In the present case, for justifiable reasons recorded in the award, the learned Tribunal has denied backwages for period prior to 24.6.1998. 24.2 In this background, it would be appropriate to take into account quantum of the back-wages for the period from 24.6.1998 till the date of the award with addition of the amount equivalent to retrenchment compensation which would be payable to the concerned workman if the company were to terminate his service immediately after the date of the award. The total amount so arrived at should be treated as and paid towards lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and amount of back-wages awarded by learned Labour Court. 25. This leaves behind the order directing payment of back-wages. 26. Before considering propriety of the said direction, it would be appropriate to deal with the direction requiring the electricity company to pay backwages. This is necessary in view of the fact that the concerned workman has, in the petition filed by him, i.e. Special Civil application No. 13417 of 2004, claimed backwages for the period prior to 24.6.1998, i.e. as claimed full backwages, whereas the learned Labour Court granted backwages for the period from 24.6.1998. 26.1 On this count, it is appropriate to note that the learned Labour Court has recorded cogent and satisfactory reason for not awarding backwages for the period prior to 24.6.1998. In this context, it is relevant to note that the appropriate Government passed order of reference on 10.8.1994 and the concerned workman filed his statement of claim on or around 18.1.1995 and the electricity company filed its reply on or around 8.9.1995. However, thereafter the concerned workman did not come forward for oral evidence until 24.6.1998. Having regard to the said fact that the learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to deny backwages for the period prior to 24.6.1998. Under the circumstances, the said decision and direction, in view of this Court, cannot be faulted and does not warrant any interference. 27. However, thereafter the concerned workman did not come forward for oral evidence until 24.6.1998. Having regard to the said fact that the learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to deny backwages for the period prior to 24.6.1998. Under the circumstances, the said decision and direction, in view of this Court, cannot be faulted and does not warrant any interference. 27. Therefore, while confirming Labour Courts final decision that the petitioners action of terminating service of the respondent-workman is illegal and not sustainable the direction to reinstate the respondent and to pay backwages from 24.06.1998 till the date of award are modified and while setting aside the direction, it is directed that in modification of said direction the electricity company shall pay lump sum compensation in sum of Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) to the respondent-workman. For quantifying the said amount, this Court has taken into account the backwages and amount appropriately equivalent to retrenchment compensation which would be payable on the date of award. The said amount shall comprise amount of lump sum compensation payable to the concerned workman instead of direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages from 24.6.1998. The said amount of lump sum compensation shall be paid to the concerned workman as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 28. Special Civil Application No. 6394 of 2005 filed by the electricity company and Special Civil Application No. 13417 of 2004 filed by the concerned workman are accordingly decided in the aforesaid terms and with the aforesaid directions. With the said directions, the petitions stand disposed of. Rule in Special Civil Application No. 6394 of 2005 filed by the electricity company is made absolute to the aforesaid extent and rule in Special Civil Application No. 13417 of 2004 filed by the concerned workman stands discharged.